(02-05-2012 06:56 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote: I just never really find interest in presuppositional arguments. Just by using the statement it's already admitted that the people are supposing something with absolutely no understanding. I'm fine with speculation but when posing an argument, it suggests you're trying to convince others of your opinion. I can't stand the dishonest who will not accept being convinced when they are out to convince.

I don't think pre suppositional arguments are fallacious so long as they don't get the logics and semantics mixed up and try and coerce people into accepting for all the wrong reasons.......sort of like chalk and cheese.

Nor do I think that idealistic philosophers should 'face the red light' simply because their methodologies to not meet scientific criteria.

If we rigidly lock all thinking processes within the domain of science,we should ask ourselves how will science 1000 years down the track look on 21st century science.

(02-05-2012 06:56 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote: I just never really find interest in presuppositional arguments. Just by using the statement it's already admitted that the people are supposing something with absolutely no understanding. I'm fine with speculation but when posing an argument, it suggests you're trying to convince others of your opinion. I can't stand the dishonest who will not accept being convinced when they are out to convince.

Hi Lilith.

On re reading your post I think you are right.
Pr supposition does suggest the view to an initial truth or validity.

Yup they are generating another generation of people whose sole purpose in life is to make the bible seem plausible.

What a waste of time.

Their only motivation is to make money off of peoples beliefs, by selling them the lies chrisitians want to hear.

I was going to answer their questions at first, but then I thought about it and realized that it would be a waste of time. They obviously aren't capable of thinking critically about their belief, otherwise they would have abandoned religion long ago.

I just finished listening to the TTA Bruggencate podcast, so naturally, I'm feeling feisty.

I may be wrong, but the point at which the Presup argument fails is 'How do you know your reasoning is valid without an absolute reference?'

Rephrased, is this not saying that relative measurements are useless without an absolute standard? So, without having an absolute measure of height, it is impossible to say that object A is taller than object B? The idea is clearly nonsensical. Is their empirically testable difference in height only possible because god is the tallest? Clearly not, any two things can be compared to each other and will yield testable data. If I've built a straw man here, I apologize and welcome clarification.

If we remove the 'absolute reference' aspect of the question, we're left with "How do you know your reasoning is valid?" That's simple: my reasoning is based on the Law of Identity which briefly states that 'A is A' (which includes the idea that "A is not Other-Than-A"). Here then is the 'absolute reference point' Bruggencate craves, one completely unreliant upon any 'god'.

To persist, Bruggencate would need to say that without god A is not A, or A is Other-Than-A. Note: A is not simply indistinguishable from, but actually IS Other-Than-A in this argument.

Bruggencate loves absolutes. His argument depends on them. However, if we understand 'absolute' to mean 'functionally indistinguishable from 100% (hereafter referred to as 'Absolute')' we allow that while there exists the possibility of Absolute, it is not necessary for it to exist in order for us to have functional absolute certainty.

Mathematically then, 100 and 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999 are different, however the difference is so minute that functionally they are the same. In short, Bruggencate's argument requires an unnecessary level of certainty, and I feel absolutely comfortable dismissing it as meaningless.

Charles
Ps. Sorry for the lengthy rant. I don't get much chance to vent this sort of thing.

"The first atoms that came together had to have intelligence in their dna, otherwise we wouldn't have intelligence because dna is the home of our genes that dictate who we are. Therefore, if the first atoms who came together had intelligence in their dna."

One profitable way to engage presuppositionalists is to ask them to account for those authentically born again Christians who disagree with presuppositionalism.

If they say all professing Christians who deny presuppositionalism were never saved to begin with, or harbor secret sin, or don't study the bible enough, this type of bigot cannot be reasoned with, and you should refrain from casting your pearls before swine.

If they show any more tolerance of of Christians who disagree with presuppositionalism than as stated above, you can force them to agree that neither spiritual blindness nor ignorance (attributes they apply to you) can account for your choice to disagree with presuppositionalism.

If authentically born again Christians can sincerely disagree with each other on the biblical matter without proving that one of them is unsaved or living in sin or just plain stupid, this is the perfect argument to rebut the presuppositionalist belief that his theory is "obviously" biblical.

That will open the door to the obvious truth that written statements, in nearly every medium, especially the law, not being mathematically precise, often lend themselves to differing but equally valid interpretations.

IMO, the problem is not presuppositionalism per se...it is the bigoted attitude of its advocate. He needs to first be open to the possibility of being wrong, before he will care about the evidence that he is wrong. Therefore we could probably gain more progress by brainstorming ways to expose the weaknesses and folly of bigotry in debate.

This monologue has made me remember a talk-show from the early 90's in which the guest for the day was a church that was controversial because they were requiring the boys from a young age to not just preach, but to preach in a very loud voice in response to anything and everything that could possibly be taken as disagreement with Christianity. When the talk show host tried to have a normal conversation with one such boy, the boy simply shouted bible verses about how the devil wants to discourage people from being biblical. Remind you of anybody?

Maybe we will get somewhere in debates with these loons if we come up with common ground upon which to argue that their bigotry is uncalled for. Plenty of bible verses tell Christians to continue examining themselves whether they be in the faith, and tell them that deception is very deceptive, so that even those who are perfectly certain about something, could still end up finding they were wrong the whole time. Throw that biblical stuff at the presuppositionalist and I think it will justify calling your debates "meaningful".